[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] EAL change for using a config file for DPDK

[Ferruh Yigit]

On 1/23/2019 8:26 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 23/01/2019 20:31, Ferruh Yigit:
>> On 7/13/2017 11:07 AM, kubax.kozak at intel.com (Kuba Kozak) wrote:
>>> This patchset introduce a mechanism for running dpdk application with 
>>> parameters provided by configuration file.
>>>
>>> A new API for EAL takes a config file data type - either loaded from
>>> file, or built up programmatically in the application - and extracts
>>> DPDK parameters from it to be used when eal init is called. 
>>> This allows apps to have an alternative method to configure EAL,
>>> other than via command-line parameters.
>>>
>>> Reworked applications are used to demonstrate the new eal API.
>>> If a --cfgfile-path <path> option is passed into command line non
>>> EAL section, then the file is loaded and used by app. If a file
>>> called config.ini is present in current working directory, and
>>> no --cfgfile-path option is passed in, config.ini file will be
>>> loaded and used by app.
>>>
>>> Patch "app/testpmd: add parse options from JSON cfg file" 
>>> demonstrates the usage of JSON instead of INI file format. 
>>> JSON file can be called the same way as above, 
>>> through --cfgfile-path <path> argument.
>>> ---
>>> this patch depends on:
>>> "Rework cfgfile API to enable apps config file support"
>>>
>>> v5:
>>>   changed define "RTE_DEVTYPE_VIRTUAL" to "RTE_DEVTYPE_UNDEFINED"
>>>   due to compilation errors (changes on current master).
>>>
>>> v4:
>>>  Code optimalisation in parse_vdev_devices() function.
>>>  Moved some functions from librte_eal/bsdapp and librte_eal/linuxapp
>>>  to the librte_eal/common.
>>>  Bug fixes.
>>>
>>> v3: 
>>>  split one patchset into two distinct patchsets:
>>>  1. cfgfile library and TEST app changes
>>>  2. EAL changes and examples (this patchset depends on cfgfile)
>>>
>>> v2:
>>>   lib eal:
>>> 	Rework of rte_eal_configure(struct rte_cfgfile *cfg, char *prgname).
>>> 	Now this function load data from cfg structure and did initial
>>> 	initialization of EAL arguments. Vdev argument are stored in different
>>> 	subsections eg. DPDK.vdev0, DPDK.vdev1 etc. After execution of this
>>> 	function it is necessary to call rte_eal_init to complete EAL
>>> 	initialization. There is no more merging arguments from different
>>> 	sources (cfg file and command line).
>>>   	Added non_eal_configure to testpmd application.
>>> 	Function maintain the same functionality as rte_eal_configure but
>>> 	for non-eal arguments. 
>>>   	Added config JSON feature to testpmd last patch from patchset contain
>>> 	example showing use of .json configuration files.
>>>
>>>   lib cfgfile:
>>>   	Rework of add_section(), add_entry() new implementation
>>>   	New members allocated_entries/sections, free_entries/sections
>>> 	in rte_cfgfile structure, change in array of pointers
>>> 	**sections, **entries instead of *sections[], *entries[]
>>>   	Add  set_entry() to update/overwrite already existing entry in cfgfile
>>> 	struct
>>>   	Add save() function to save on disc cfgfile structure in INI format
>>>   	Rework of existing load() function  simplifying the code
>>>   	Add unit test realloc_sections() in TEST app for testing realloc/malloc
>>> 	of new API functions, add test for save() function
>>>
>>> Kuba Kozak (3):
>>>   eal: add functions parsing EAL arguments
>>>   app/testpmd: add parse options from cfg file
>>>   app/testpmd: add parse options from JSON cfg file
>>
>> This patchset is idle more than a year now.
>> It solves problem of eal parameters, it doesn't remove them but at least moves
>> from command line to config file.
>>
>> The patch seems mostly done, but what is the status of it, do we want to
>> continue it?
>> And if we want to continue it can this be a good candidate for GCOS?
> 
> I think we must focus on reorganization of EAL first.
> When the options parsing will be better isolated,
> and accessible from API independant of rte_eal_init,
> then we could provide some helpers to use those APIs
> for a config file, a custom command line or anything else.

Is there any actions do we need to take when patches are rejected?